in a similar way that not rolling out someone from the Flat Earth Society every time space travel is mentioned is narrow minded, presumably.As far as scepticism of lockdown policy goes, to suggest it shouldn't even be up for discussion is narrow-minded.
Blooming lot of travelling ‘beast to spend half the day arguing on here (anonymously) with people you’ve never met. Can’t you argue from home?
Poacher turned game-keeper
Haha. I have to get my run in the hills in on top of that tooOriginally Posted by Derby Tup
See how hard it is having a reasonable discussion on here.
This is an analogy that has absolutely no basis to the discussion we are having on here, which most are engaging in with a sense of decency and courtesy even where there is disagreement.
But this comparison is a waste of cyber space. Hopefully at some point you'll find it more useful to stick to making meaningful contributions, but I suspect not as you come across as someone who spends most of the day picking at scabs.
Richard Taylor
"William Tell could take an apple off your head. Taylor could take out a processed pea."
Sid Waddell
You questioned media"bias" against lockdown"sceptics". I suggested an analogy based on climate change. You insisted it was small minded. I provided a different analogy. You suggest it's a waste of cyber space.
Who's being"unreasonable", indecent or discourteous here?
There are some posters on here who it is always worth being unlazy to read.Yeah but for some weird reason you were implying office workers as being too lazy to make sandwiches and carry a flask. My home -> office -> home journey is 100 miles, say 3 to 4 hours travelling time each day; I guess I was somehow unlazy enough to do that but too lazy to make a sandwich though....
You Dave.
Richard Taylor
"William Tell could take an apple off your head. Taylor could take out a processed pea."
Sid Waddell
Apart from being funny: this pithily illustrates that there is no such thing as "balance", merely degrees of bias.
You accuse me of “nitpicking” when you quote a report by the ONS which said precisely the opposite of what you think it does.You Dave.
You accuse me of “making up assertions”.
You called me a “gossip” and “someone who spends most of the day picking at scabs”.
These only ever come out when your argument or data is criticised or held up to scrutiny.
Like when you share posts from InProportion2 who call the C19 response a “stupid and deadly mistake”.
Or when you quote a blog by someone who calls C19 "bad flu", lockdown "house arrest" and death rate figures "fiction".
You called me a troll, then admitted that you didn't know what it meant.
But it's me who's being indecent or discourteous....
Which makes as much sense as most of your posts about the virus, and reflects your attitude to evidence.
So no surprises there.
Is this thread STILL going on?!?
